Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
STATION
CSPAN 11
MSNBCW 9
CNNW 7
CSPAN2 5
CNN 3
KPIX (CBS) 1
MSNBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 60
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 60 (some duplicates have been removed)
political adviser indicated that medicare and medicaid are the main drivers of our deficit. i know we have seen this morning also several editorial writers indicate the same, that it is important that we put these drivers of the deficit on the table and include them as part of any agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. as the speaker said, we have done our part. we have put revenues on the table, something we did not do two years ago during the debt ceiling negotiation. we still believe that it is most important for us to address the economic situation in this country where so many people are out of work. that is why we take the position and believe strongly that increase in marginal rates i, income-tax rates, is not the way to produce growth and put people back to work. but we have not seen any good faith effort on the part of its administration to talk about the real problem that we're trying to fix. i am told mr. bowles, some of us will meet with him later today, said earlier this morning there has been no serious discussion by the white house on entitlements, on medicare and medicaid. th
street greed in the form of a $6 trillion housing bubble. this brought large budget deficits. some at the center of the housing crash are pushing to deep cuts to social programs to cure the budget deficit. the c.e.o. of goldman sachs, who received a $10 billion direct bailout at below market interest rates have preached about decreasing social security benefits and increasing the retirement age. main street americans have lost more than 40% of their wealth from 2007 to 2010. nearly one in six u.s. residents is officially poor, the highest rate in 50 years. 22% of american children live in poverty. we're facing an economic situation that resembles the years leading up to the great depression. now, this prevailing budget plan calls for deep cuts, environmental protection, social security, medicare, medicaid. well, corporations and the top 1% get tax cuts of nearly $3 trillion over the next decade. this is not how you protect a democracy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous
this year in january. at the same time, the deficit for fiscal year 1991 increased in the president's budget summation in february when it was submitted for that year -- yes, sir? >> can i ask you said the sequester order was 31%. >> yes. >> where did it come from? >> did they have a sequestered? >> it grew out of the original holland's 1985 legislation that we adopted it was estimated $100 billion of the end of 1990 had increased nearly $300 billion by the end of 1990 with saddam hussein invading kuwait on august 2nd and the first gulf war. these gentlemen were there. they participated in this long arduous debate. the debate came up to something that is extremely familiar to everyone in this office in this room and that is taxes and spending. more specifically the desire of the president as understand, governor, was to have a capital gains tax cut. but the democrats will only agree the overall rates were increased no such agreement could be reached and democrats retreated on the rate increases while selling for a limitation of tax deductions for higher income. i will give the recollection o
the president called his deficit reduction commission to give the president and -- an idea what we could do to get our fiscal house in order. i want to show in you this chart, mr. speaker, it's the chronic deficits we have had in this country, goes back to 1970. all this red ink represents the inflation adjusted, 2012 dollars, comparing apples to apples across this chart, the deficit that is we have had in this country, and you see going back to 197 o 0, mr. speaker, which happens to be the year of my birth, we have run a deficit every single year from 199 . you remember 1998 we had newt gingrich leading the first republican u.s. house of representatives in modern times. bill clinton in the white house. they came together to solve some big problems. welfare reform, health insurance reform. folks forget about health insurance reform. we did away with pre-existing conditions. did away with all of the impediments in the large group markets, what they call the plans, had great success in that area, and finally got back into some positive territory. to be truthful, this assumes that all the fede
it in building a good, solid farm bill which actually found $23 billion in savings towards the deficit. we did it in passing a strong highway bill that will strengthen our nation's infrastructure. and we did it most recently this week in working through a large and complex defense authorization bill that will keep our nation safer and more secure in these perilous times. it will take more of this kind of cooperation and consensus building to address the very real and substantial challenges facing our nation today. that is why i'm deeply concerned about a proposal floated recently by some members of the majority regarding the rules of the senate. they propose to change the nearly 100-year-old senate rule that requires a two-thirds majority to change the operating rules of the senate. our colleagues in the majority are proposing to use a simple majority vote to make the change. that's the issue here. the issue is the manner in which they plan to do it. once the precedent of changing a rule with a simple majority vote is established, 51 senators could change the rules to suit their own convenienc
in a winner and a loser. >> our ultimate goal is an agreement that gets our long-term deficit under control in a way that is fair and balanced. >> if the president really wants to reach an agreement, he needs to be talking with members of his own party, right here in washington, trying to broker an agreement. not out there firing up crowds and giving speeches. >> we all know that we've had this spending crisis coming at us like a freight train. and it has to be dealt with. in order to try to come to an agreement, republicans are willing to cut revenue on the table, but it's time for the president and democrats to get serious about the spending problem that our country has. >> but the point is, there is no economic growth being discussed in the fiscal cliff argument, the solution -- there is no economic growth. not possible with what's being proposed. in fact just the exact opposite. obama does not care about economic growth. he cares about wealth transfers, redistribution. >> it's obvious that he's going to have to stand behind some significant changes in entitlements, and i think what they
repeatedly said and our caucus again just confirmed that job creation equals deficit reduction, and we must put the country back to work. we have proposals that are on the floor. we still believe that even with the -- what little time remains and what little time remains when we're actually working, this is still possible. this is still doable. this is not a democrat or republican issue. republicans believe that america needs to go back to work. it's just a matter of having the will to do it, the programs are out there. compromise can be made around the streamlining of regulations to make sure that we are putting people back to work. if chris christy and barack obama can get -- chris cristie and barack obama can get together on that, and i know what's transpired and how the impact of our infrastructure has taken place along the eastern seaboard, it's something we ought to be able to rally around immediately. and of course everyone, everyone deserves a $250,000 tax break. we all agree on that. so why not just simply adopt it and then come back and we'll have time to address the issues as it
. it is also the excesses. look at the road we are on. a trillion dollar deficit every year. a debt crisis on the horizon. debt on this scale is destructive on so many ways. one of them is that it draws resources away from private charity. even worse is the prospect of a debt crisis, which will, unless we do something very soon. when government finances collapsed, it is the most vulnerable who are the victims, which we are seeing in europe. many feel they have nowhere to turn. we must never let that happen here. and election has come and gone. the people have made their choice. policy-makers still have a duty to choose between ideas that work and those that do not. when one economic policy after another has failed our working families, it is no answer to expressed compassion for them or create government programs that offer promise but do not create reforms. we must come together to advance new strategies for the the people out of poverty. let's go with what works. looking around this room at the men and women who are carrying legacy, i know we are answering the call. this cause is right.
on the left vigorously opposed. >> the thing that is driving the horrendous deficit and debt problem are the federal healthcare programs. medicare, medicaid, tri care and related medical health programs. >> future deficits only make tax cuts even more contentious. any bill that permanently increases the deficit requires 60 votes in the senate. and these days, anything with the word "tax" in it, makes it hard to round up 60 votes. bret? >> bret: definitely. jim, thank you. >> you bet. >> bret: so do you think the white house and lawmakers will beat the deadline or is not let me know on twitter. you follow me@bretbaeir. republicans make a counter offer to get off the fiscal cliff. we have talk about it. what's in it. the president's response. the fox all-stars. they're next. [ male announcer ] you like who you are... and you learned something along the way. this is the age of knowing what you're made of. so, why let erectile dysfunction get in your way? talk to your doctor about viagra. 20 million men already have. ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you
talked about during the campaign, which is a balanced, responsible approach to deficit reduction that can help give businesses certainty and make sure that the country grows. and unfortunately, the speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance. >> sometimes you hear a sound byte and it sounds like the normal talking points of the campaign that you always here, you're always hearing politicians saying the same thing. but listen again to that last thing that the president said there. >> unfortunately the speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance. >> speaker's proposal is out of balance. empirical statement, sort of. there's a way to judge whether or not that statement is true. what's happening in washington is both sides, republicans and democrats, are making offers and counteroffers about how to deal with the fiscal mess that they created. this artificial debt line that washington created. the white house made its offer to republicans last week. they sent timothy geithner up to capitol hill to unveil the administration's offer to congressional republicans. the offer was e
getting the debt under control and deficit and government spending under control especially when you understand that we have ha and post office in trouble. we continue to get closer to the fiscal cliff. i think that the president should take a case study and look at calvin coolige and john f. kennedy when they went in and lowered tax rates and you increase revenues which is what we are talking about. >> did you feel like it was a bait and switch from president obama and what you heard about in the campaigns. light on the details . i heard from members of congress that that is not what you thought was going to happen. >> you are absolute low right. what you see happening right now, dana is the art of politics and verse us the science of good policy. we need to move away from campaign mode and stimulate economic growth and wealth expansion and not wealth distribution. when the president is focused on the wealth distribution politic which thomas jefferson and hamilton lincoln talked against we are headed on down the wrong path. more people are pushed to food stamps and more people pushe
house deficit reduction package. later, nancy pelosi addresses the fiscal cliff and middle- class tax cuts. tomorrow on ", washington "" robert -- "washington journal," robert van order on the mortgage loan forgiveness. adult'eman on being an with autism. plus, your emails, phone calls, and tweets. >> c-span, created by cable companies and venture 1979, brought to you as a public service by >> president obama talked about the so-called fiscal cliff and his proposal to end the bush era tax cuts. he spoke at a manufacturing facility in hatfield, pennsylvania, for about 25 minutes. >> thank you! [cheers and applause] >> well, good morning, everybody. everybody, please have a seat, have a seat. relax for a second. it is good to see all of you. hello, hatfield! it is good to be back in pennsylvania and it is good to be right here at connects. i want to thank michael airington and the inventor of connects, joel glickman, for hosting me today. where'd they go? stand up so everybody can see you guys. there you go! i just noticed, we got a couple of outstanding members of congress here. chaka
is that at a minimum, any deficit package has to include this immediate february and march debt ceiling that we're going to hit. >> is jack lew the current chief of staff and former budget director the top candidate to be treasury? what is your best guess? >> he appears to be the frontrunner from everything you see and read and hear and he is a -- i've known him a long time. he's an accomplished guy. he knows these issues perfectly. he has worked in the financial community and has a sense of that and vice versa. and so i think he would be a it terrific choice. >> we should say there are a couple other people who have been rumored to being vetted. roger altman, former treasury official, larry fink, be erskine bowles. this what is alan simpson, erskine bowles' partner in the deficit commission, had to say about that possibility last week on the show. >> he said he would be very pleased to do that. he shared that with me personally, as long as they move the treasury department to north carolina, to charlotte. i don't think -- >> he's worked so hard on this. you don't think he could be persuaded? >
could not print money, we would be in a very bad way. i just think we need to get this deficit under control. those two wars that we have not paid for need to be paid for. you know, it has to be done. if going off the fiscal cliff means that it will be done, so be it. host: other groups are weighing in on these fiscal cliff talks. here is "the new york times" -- in the "financial times" this morning -- roger altman writing today in "the financial times." president obama will be meeting with several governors today at the white house to talk about the fiscal cliff. they will be meeting this morning around 10:00 a.m. eastern time, and then the governors are slated to hold a news conference at around 11:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for more details. washington insiders tackle fiscal cliff policy solutions. the group will hold a roundtable discussion today on the importance of reform to address the nation's debt and deficit spending this event takes place this morning around 8:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for all our coverage of the fiscal cliff talks. we have a web
have a president that is serious about getting our debt under control and getting our deficit, which the federal government spending under control, especially when you understand that we have fha in trouble, we have the post office in trouble, we continue to get closer to this incredible fiscal cliff. and i think that the president should take a case study analysis and look at what president calvin coolidge did and president jfk did, john f. kennedy did when they went in and lowered tax rates and you increase revenues which is exactly what we're talking about. >> were you-- did you feel like it was a bait and switch from president obama from what you'd heard about in the campaign and light on the details, but that's one of the things i've heard from members of congress that they thought, wait a second, that's not at all what you thought was going to happen. >> yeah, you're absolutely right. what you see happening right now, dana, is really the art of politics, versus the science of good policy and i think we need to move away from campaign mode and we need to do the things that are g
to force congress to deal with the deficit. now senate majority leader harry reid is proposing changes to the filibuster that might make senate lesseesy. right now senators can block motions to proceed which means the senate can't even debate the legislation in question. president obama realizing the stakes for his second term agenda endorsed those changes on tuesday. white house communications director dan pfeiffer said in a state, the president supports sen tor reid's reform the filibuster. he has a chance to change the filibuster with a 51% majority. he is getting close to getting that majority. republicans, meanwhile, are apoplectic. mitch mcconnell has accused reid of throwing a bomb into the senate. john boehner said he will block it if the filibuster is curtailed. all right. let's start at the most basic principle level. before we get into the weeds of senate procedure and the current reform rules on the table, i would like to put forth the proposition that the filibuster itself is a ridiculous thing that we shouldn't have and that if we -- we have come to see it as normal and i
spending her hard-earned tax dollars like water, running trillion-dollar deficits year after year. she's angry and she has every right to be angry. so what are we going to do about it? lately we've heard a lot of talk about raising revenues, but not nearly enough talk about bringing the federal government down to the right size, about matching spending to the resources we have, about balancing the federal budget. oh, we hear about a balanced approach, but that's just a way of saying we need to increase taxes. actually, we don't need to increase taxes. the best thing we could do would be to not increase taxes. the best thing we can do is to raise revenues by making our economy as healthy and strong as it can be. that means we need to help our businesses grow and hire. that's become way too hard to do in the past couple of years. a businessman in duchess county, new york, said he's going to have to limit the number of employees he has to less than 50 so he won't be subject to penalties under the 2010 health law. so right now the federal government is keeping him from offering jobs. that
him for a long time, deficit hawk. they haven't allowed him to put a budget out for years. he's growing frustrated. i'm sure he's going to be glad to leave. but i was surprised by that as well. you see also, sam stein, republicans are now starting to really bash boehner from the right. the president needs to take note. he needs to take note. >> give him some running room. >> i'm only saying this because you remember, we went through this with newt. you know, bill clinton would push newt only so far, and then the conservatives in the caucus like myself and matt salmon, steve largent and others would say we're not doing a deal. we will take this place down. we're not doing a deal. and then newt would call bill clinton up and say, you're pushing me too far. you've got to work with me here. the same thing's happening right now with boehner. >> with boehner. >> the republican -- and when you start stripping people of committee -- committee seats, war breaks out and it gets really -- it happened with us. it's about to happen here. he's got to realize that boehner is his partner. >>
to bring down our deficits and stream line tax. including asking the wealthiest americans to pay more for education and train science and research. >> any republican who buys this is a fool. republicans have stood for one thing statistically that held them. they are the low tax party. the other guys want to tax to match their reckless spending. if they give it up now in return for nothing, obama wins and high wins big. i understand why the democrats are doing this. they imagine that republicans have no bargaining power today . i say that it is true if republicans resist they will take the blame and that will help democrats in the congress. but obama's never running again. he doesn't care who gets the blame. he is the president and a blame duck. he wants a successful second term. if it starts by going over the cliff it starts with second recession and wrecked second term. >> steve: that's why the president said i would be willing to do anything to get a deal. >> gretchen: it is not a deal. this is what the american public needs to know. this is raising taxos successful people and reduc
years to reduce the deficit and restructure the fiscal policy. so is eventually to bring the budget into balance. this framework must include tax reforms to raise more revenues and encourage growth and enhance productivity. it must include parameters defined in future levels of debt as a share of the gdp. it must include changes to discretionary spending and entitlements as well as defense. our elected leaders should launch legislation that will construct this framework and 2013. including powerful but appropriate default of enforcement mechanisms. without a recalibrated unsustainable fiscal policy, the united states international standing will decline in the national security will be undermined. such an outcome would be bad for the united states, and it could be bad for the world. as pete said, he and i are joined here today by three distinguished individuals. those serving america for decades made who made a difference in how to come up with solutions to very complex problems. it has been a privilege for me to be with them in approaching what this coalition and those who are not h
as it goes out into the country. are its priorities in this discussion about the deficit, the people's priorities that brought the administration to office and what will they do at some of those meetings as people say, well, we also want to talk about raising the minimum wage. we also want to talk about workers and the condition of work in this country. that stimulus spending, maybe it is not big enough. there is definitely an effort to redo some of the mistakes of the last term. they are in the same peril louse situation. >> we are looking at the $1.6 billion in tax increases. those are the big power moves. does that jive with what people want here? >> these aren't new numbers. these are the numbers that the president originally talked about. the original time two years ago and then a year before that in terms of bringing down the deficit. his plan for bringing down the deficit, which got nothing from boehner. i like the way you are putting this. in the first term, it seemed to me that obama was very conciliatory towards republicans. he wanted to create a grand one and he learned so
balanced approach to reducing the deficit. here is a house republican on higher rates. >> republicans are willing to make sure we don't go over this fiscal cliff but at the same time don't harm this economy. what has to happen here if the president shows a little leadership we are willing to stay in the room and stay here and we are willing to get this done. that's why you saw a proposal that is raoeubl reasonable that meets his criteria. >> reporter: steny hoyer said in the next few days we will see substantive movement in private to get this done. jenna: we'll continue to watch the play-by-play, mike, thank you. jon: right now we are continuing to await a speech by former president george w. bush, the speakers are taking to the podium there to get ready to introduce the former president. he is set to address a conference there in dallas, where he will spotlight the positive impact of immigration on u.s. economic growth. this as the g.o.p. looks to attract more hiss to the party. meantime mr. bush's father, former president george h.w. bush is spending another day in the hospital bei
know, one thing is we take a huge bite out of the deficit. we do it in a crude may, and there would be immediate attempts to fix it and fine-tune it and take some back. some would probably get through. if you actually want to look at it from a policy standpoint, it may not be the worst possible option to just go over the cliff and then put back in the tax cuts and the spending increases or renewals that you'd like to put back in. so, you know, worst things could happen. >> well, listen, alan simpson and i go back to his sound from the "today" show, eugene. he said anyone talking about it in that way, there's stupidity involved. he didn't say, eugene, you better not because you're my buddy, but the reality is even our first read team says this notion or all of this media hype about going off the cliff from some of our colleagues is overstated. to their point a deal is in sight, that's why boehner and the president spoke yesterday. it's a matter of how big. will they separate the tax cuts from a larger needed plan later down the road? i guess what you folks in d.c. like to call "kicki
deficit everybody in washington agreed they should come together to make the tough decisions that had to be made. something that would provide short-term stimulus but long-term debt relief. after all we all knew something had to be done. the health of our nation depended on it. washington surprise, surprise, decided to delay for the umpteenth time kicking the proverbial can down the road. then the campaign really heated up and we were told we would have our sweet relief after the election. finally the story went voters would provide clarity, a choice played out across the country that would deliver the elusive answers. what are we getting? endless posturing game playing and the same rhetoric over and over again. both sides standing up and preening themselves campaign style as if they expect the public to pay attention and give deference to the repetition of the same ideas. i for one are tired of it. americans have been poked and prodded, pulled left and right at the same time and used in some cases abused. the campaign is over. we have had our fill of the various white house represent
we have here, the real driver of budget deficits, the real threat to american economics, superiority in this world, out of control-- the president of the united states, the president for four yea years, no credible plan for tackling that spending. >> dave: there's been nothing put on paper when it comes to entitlements from the president one thing he's been afraid to do. now he's been reelected don't be afraid to face the voters. tack tackle entitlement and changes to survive. >> alisyn: isn't that the beauty of the second term. incumbency you're no longer bo ho holden to anyone. >> and that 1.6 trillion dollar. before 800 billion and now it's 1.6 trillion. maybe that's the second term speaking. >> alisyn: let's talk about what's going on with the christmas tree. as you know, it's christmas season and that means that there will be incidents where the p.c. police are out in force, checking and calling your tree, a holiday tree or a christmas tree and this has. this is brewing in massachusetts because the mayor of a small town, well, a city in massachusetts, a small river had invited r
to be handed down the $60 trillion deficit. they will come to a deal. but right now, it's political theater. and it's probably going to look like the simpson-bowles. that will come full-circle again. >> here's a problem the republicans have got themselves into. is obama has been very clever here, the president. i think what he's done is skillfully said to the public, if he goes over the fiscal cliff, the republicans are prepared to make the entire middle class to pay more tax to save 2% of the wealthiest americans paying a little bit more. and that's a very bad position for the republicans to find themselves in, isn't it? >> it certainly is. it's a very bad position for them to find themselves in. the fact of the matter, it isn't true. raising taxes on the wealthiest americans will not only solve the problems. it doesn't even address the core problems. the core problems, $16 trillion in national debt comes from government overspending. and we have sluggish growth. raising the taxes on anybody, whether it's the poor or the middle class or the wealthiest americans, doesn't solve that problem.
, but if the president and the congress can't get together on cutting on doing something about the deficit and doing stuff, fine let the cliff come. >> brian: but the deficit is not addressed and our defense will be gutted. you okay with that? >> i'm not okay with it. but i think the defense will just trim and get it done. listen, the guys who are in the military have operated that way for a long time. in other words they know somebody gives them something they know how to get a job done with less in many cases. they'll do it. >> brian: i don't think so. i think it will be a disas -- disaster and the military will be cut down. >> maybe the disaster would be maybe they don't understand it. now deal with it. >> brian: there is carnage until they come to the realization. thanks so much. >> thank you. >> brian: this morning you will hear from the cop who spent his hard earned cash to buy a homeless man a pair of boots and socks. and from the tourist who snapped this picture. then schools are failing. crime is rising. so why
how to deal with this deficit. it is all there, you know, in black and white. anybody can read that plan. it has entitlement cuts, it has, you know, cuts in various programs and so on. so they have been pretty specific about what they want. by the way, in the senate, there is no budget for three years. >> here's the thing -- >> but let me raise the other point. i think jessica had it not exactly right when she said the republicans haven't been specific about how they would be willing to raise taxes. what republicans are saying is we're willing to put a cap on deductions of $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, haven't been specific about the number, but that's a way to reduincrease the taxes o wealthier taxpayers but in a way that doesn't raise tax rates. that seems to be a big concession. >> i'm talking about negotiations. if the american people wanted paul ryan's plan, they would have voted for paul ryan. they didn't. they voted for compromise. and that's not happening. wouldn't the most direct way, the best way would be a counteroffer of some sort? with specifics? >> well, you know, do
with respect to our deficit and debt is a national security liability. we need our senior leadership. we need a senior leadership to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so. we have a requirement to do so. at the foundation of national power is ultimately economic comment and in terms of global influence, in terms of the ability to support a military, the economic is foundation. and we have i think the united states, both an opportunity to require it to get our house in order, and i believe that our 100 senators and members of the house will step up on this and sufficient majority in the coming months. >> how do you look at your surplus of the u.s.? does that say we have america under our control? >> we are one of the closest allies of the united states. so of course our position today to united states is very, very decisive, strengthen our relationship. so these are not, there is no intention for us to try to use this kind of economic relationship in different context. so we are very satisfied with the current relationship with the united states. that's all spent let me open up to the fl
our deficit situation as the economy grows. without raising any taxes. but the fact of the matter is i know the gentleman has historically not felt tax cuts should be paid for either by reducing it or offsetting. the president doesn't agree with the $800 billion because he doesn't think the math works. i share the president's view. the math doesn't work. the most useful effort will be if we all agree on the onive -- objective, whether it's $4 trillion, whether it's 70% debt to g.d.p. ratio which most economists or a little less than that is sustainable or is on a sustainable path. if we all agree with the objective and then, mr. majority leader, simply make the math work to get there on a way that we could agree on, i think america would be advantaged, the economy would be advantaged and we'd see a renaissance of job creation in this country as we did in the 2000's. and i'll be glad to yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i accept the gentleman's good intentions. i know he doesn't think that we ought to be imposing additional obligations on the american people to pay more of their money int
a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit our nation needs. so, wolf, here at the white house, they received this letter earlier in the day. they've had time to process it and clearly the white house not seeing this as something that they want to even bargain with. they've been saying that the next move is up to speaker boehner. and they wanted to see specific details so that they could actually begin the negotiations. what we see in this statement is that they feel he did not provide those details. now, the speaker and the president will see each other tonight we think at a holiday reception here at the white house. we'll see if they will actually discuss this, wolf. >> all right. the republicans hated the democratic initial proposal. the white house hates the republican counterproposal. we'll have much more in our next hour, jessica, thank you. >>> and you're in "the situation room." happening now, president obama issued a clear warning to the president bashar al assad. there will be consequences if you use chemical weapons against your own people. new details of the tragedy
a significant trade deficit. the value of their oil imports are greater than their exports to iran. this provision should lock up a substantial portion of iran's earnings from its oil sales in each of these countries. as for the financial executions will longer be able to transfer iran's oil earnings beyond their countries borders without fear of losing their access to the u.s. financial system, iran will be severely limited in its ability to transfer funds across jurisdictions. oil revenues will largely be shackled with a given country, and only usable to purchase goods from that country. as you might imagine, we have been hitting the road, making sure that our partners in the international financial community understand the significance of this provision. perhaps the greatest endorsement of our efforts has come from the iranian president himself. speaking in october, ahmadinejad said, "the enemy has announced it has introduced sanctions on the purchase of iran from iraq. even worse, it has imposed banking sanctions, meaning of some oil is sold, its revenues are not transferable t
there a long time 1.6 trillion over the next years, cutting the deficit, 1.6 cutting the tax cuts for the wealthiest for americans, and medicare and medicaid and farm subsidies and other, $1 trillion in additional spending cuts that the house, the senate and the white house have already agreed to and then $800,000,000,000 in new spending new revenue from cuts and spending because of ending the war in iraq and in afghanistan. the president's budget is out there. on the republican side, there is nothing. i am going to get back to it. here it is, also guy in the way is boehner. you have heard me say this, that boehner is not a bad guy. i used to think that and if you let him go, he would make a deal. i don't believe that any more. i think boehner is out to -- he doesn't care about the middle class, and his goal is to let this country go over the fiscal cliff because he wants the economy to fail because he wants president obama to fail. john boehner, again, i think the worst speaker ever, it's a time for leadership, not for playing political games. americ
of this is smoke and mirrors. all of this deficit reduction stuff, there isn't any. there aren't any spending cuts. >> greta: while democrats and republicans fight it out, the nation is waiting and waiting and waiting and suffering as they wait. former new york city mayor rudy guiliani joins us. good evening, mayor. >> how will this unravel? >> if you take them at their word, it sounds like the president is anxious to go over the fiscal cliff, and he leaves very little room for republicans to negotiate with him with a 1.7 trillion dollar tax increase, 50 billion more in stimulus spending, and absolutely no expenditure reductions that are going to take place right now. i mean, from the point of view of republicans, you're going to get more spending decreases if you go over the fiscal cliff than if you deal with president obama. >> greta: well, it appears to many in the city that it's politico check mate for the president. if we go over the fiscal cliff, what it means is the taxes will go up on the wealthy, the big earners. it also goes up on the middle class. i assume the middle class will look to
. but the other thing is remember this continued tax cut for the middle class is part of a deficit reduction package so the president is very much focused on getting rid of that debt and getting it off the backs of our kids but in the meantime, it is not necessary to raise tax rates on the middle class in order to get there. and if we did raise taxes on the middle class, it is not going to get us that far down the road. what will really get us down the road is getting back to the regular tax cuts, having the wealthiest of americans pay their fair share. letting the 2% go back up from 35% to 39% which they were under bill clinton. one final my2k story from doug up in vancouver washington. what do you say? >> caller: hey bill. let me put my bong down real quick here. [ laughter ] >> caller: you know, there is a certain bunch of us here that think that they're going to get us on entitlement. that's all they keep talking about. nobody's mentioning the military. so i'm with the other caller, the gal before that said let's go over t
. and that is, we must ask the wealthy to pay a little more so we can get these deficit eliminated. get our debt paid down and start growing the economy again. that's not unusual or new to any of us. nobody in the country. so i think the president is sticking to what he said throughout the campaign and as i said 3 million more people voted for him than voted for the other guy. >> with that said, on taxes, if there's any chance on your side, is there any chance on your side to come down to the form of a smaller tax hike on incomes above $250,000 or would you consider keeping rate it is same at $250,000 and raising them only on higher incomes, say half a million or $1 million a year? >> i think it's all part of the negotiations. we know where the president is and that is 250,000. but there are a lot of democrats who voiced back before the campaign 500,000, some say even a million. all of that is going to be negotiated. the president wants 250. if mr. boehner wants to come and offer something different, i'm sure he will do that. but the president stands at 250. which is below even where i was but h
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 60 (some duplicates have been removed)